Feingold on C-Span now (8:17am est).
Posted by Susan S at February 17, 2007 05:17 AMDuuuhhh, yeah, Paradox. I told the world Dems were Republithugs in drag years ago. Complicit is a good world; they love Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy so they will leave him alone.
Save money and escape to another country to live (Guatamala is popular I hear) and tell everyone you're a Canadian, since Amerikans are reviled the world over.
Posted by Mal Feasance at February 17, 2007 05:42 AMA long time ago, I was reading into 9-11 and concluded Bush & cronies were all criminals who deserve to be locked away for the rest of their lives. I realized that this was an unusual view that most of my fellow citizen's didn't share. So yes, I agree. I see the President in ways that many other people do not.
Of course, looking at polls, including views of 9-11 (Which seems to be looking more and more like the Reichstag Fire of the early 21st Century) more and more fellow citizens seem to be coming around to my point of view on that issue.
But it's very difficult to judge that sort of thing from the inside.. My greatest fear is that I/we on the left will confuse wishful thinking with my/our assessment of reality and so will overplay my/our hand.
This is Bush's war. This entire process was also supported by the Republican leadership in the House and Senate. Trying to hang any part of this around the Dems necks is complete nonsense. Bush is still the POTUS and the Republicans can still filibuster the Senate. That's the reality for the next two years. Congressman Murtha's approach is probably the best we can realistically get in the short run.
Posted by Marvyt at February 17, 2007 06:06 AMRepublicans are corporate whores. Democrats are corporate lap dancers.
At this point all politicians should be frisked to see how much Haliburton they're holding.
The alarm is going off, and the republicans are still inside the Bank of Iraq filling their pockets with cash. Outside, the democrats are politely tapping on the horn of the getaway car.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 17, 2007 06:10 AMPerhaps the best way to end the "Tweedle-dee,Tweedle dum" system is to support alternative parties on the right ;Libertarians ,Conservative Christians,John Birchers,Isolationists ,Traditionalists.
The Republican party has never been more ripe for splitting up because of the Iraq war.
Posted by Kevin at February 17, 2007 06:18 AMParadox, I have come to the same conclusion. It certainly answers a lot of the questions we have had here at TLC about the Democrats position on many issues or their ignoring opportunity after opportunity, which has driven many of us here crazy. I have always been a Democrat and will continue to be a Democrat, but I am very disappointed in my Party. I also no longer trust that the Party will do the right thing for Americans, but the alternative is terrifying. Sad, how sad.
Posted by Judith at February 17, 2007 06:50 AMYes they are on the clock. But I am not so sure that their actions to end the war are really all they seem to those of us who are frustrated at the inaction. After all, they can't even get a non-binding resolution passed.
IMHO Murtha has the right tack(sp?) on this but Feingold is where we want to be.
Posted by Fr33d0m at February 17, 2007 07:20 AMYou do realize they've been in charge for only about a month right?
Posted by Daryl at February 17, 2007 07:30 AM
Judith is right.
How many times have Democrats sat on their hands, seemingly afraid to act, cowardly before the great Booosh?
Look at the Iraq war. Democrat after Democrat bought into the lies and gave Bush and Cheney a blank check to wage war, abdicating their Constitutionally mandated responsibility to carry out oversight?
How many times have read posts from allegedly liberals and progressives who say we don't have the votes to stop Bush or remove him from office so we just have to put up with it until 2008?
It boggles the mind.
Posted by Christopher at February 17, 2007 07:32 AMElectoral politics turn like some behemoth oil tanker in some glacial motion which sucks when an urgent nightmare like a phony war is involved.
We have been hammered all our lives to expect instant results and are rightly infuriated when an infernal travesty drags on.
I view the mainstream democratic party as Dimmacrites, dim hypocrites with a certain bent for shooting themselves in the foot.
Much of social change begins at the ground. Hate corporate influence, then emulate Ghandi and stop buying so much new stuff and give your money to thrift shops.
Get your personal houses in order toward sustainability. Get rid of those wretched 401k plans and park your investment money in honest high rated municiple bond projects.
Starve the beast, eschew speculation and while your at it, keep an eye to the plodding deliberations of congress and pester them with letters and the fear of losing office.
Posted by Chris Rich at February 17, 2007 07:41 AMOf course we are complicit. When the Democracy comes to this state of affairs the Founding Fathers wisely left us the mechanisms to force change on our elected officials. We are to throw them out of office. And the Federalist Papers suggest by any means necessary.
If any change is to occur it must start at the level of the lobbys. Too much special interest cash is washing around Washington, buying votes, and setting-up the next campaign run. If that link isn't broken nothing will change. If any one link can be singled out as the causal link, the antecedent, between what we have seen in Wasington and the great failures to govern wisely for the last 20 years it is the link between special interests and Congress. Follow the money. That's all you need to do.
The United States as envisioned by the Founding Fathers no longer exists. We were simply the Americans who happened to be here when it died. Look at Obama's ad on the left of this page. Read the wonderful sentiment. Obama openly states he doesn't take "special interest" money. Of course he doesn't. He will only take a lobbyist's money if it comes from that lobbyist's spouse. It makes his private donations of $15,000,000.00 dollars a little more easily understood. He too is the in the lobby's pockets, only it's just the spouses purses so he can hide behind their skirts. You are getting the best candidates special interests can afford to let you vote for.
Posted by phidipides at February 17, 2007 07:57 AMThe Democrats are entirely complicit with the sole exception of Feingold, who has made his opposition clear from the beginning. The Jack Murthas of the party are just as guilty as the Liebermans, perhaps even more so - while Lieberman is a pansy and tool of the republicans, Murtha is a veteran of the most mistaken war the US has engaged in until Iraq. He failed the country miserably in his support for the war and, imo, must pay for its consequences alongside all of the other Democrats who supported it then and tiptoe around it now.
I believe that virtually the entire Democratic party is guilty of failing its duty to uphold the Constitution and thus is implicitly guilty by association in the committing of crimes against humanity.
I have voted Democrat for all of my voting life, but unless Al Gore runs in 2008, I won't be supporting anyone.
Posted by KD at February 17, 2007 08:06 AMYou are the only sane person from this blog....
The Democrats are spineless. The people are looking towards the Democrats to fight tooth and nail and they arent doing it.
There is no opposition party in this country.
We've had this discussion before.
Yes, the Dems are complicit. Nothing will change overnight.
As unfortunate as it may seem, it will have to be a gradual change from GOP-lite Dems to Progressive Dems. Most of us agree that it will take a series of elections to get rid of the madness. I predict it will take until 2020 for us to get out of this hole.
It's going to be a slow process folks, get used to it.
BTW, for those who don't like the pace, get out and start working for a Progressive candidate in their area.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 17, 2007 08:25 AMone of the hardest things to understand is time. animals tend to maintain that around them which is the same, and reject most opporunity that requires their actions to change.
no political party has any platform that appeals to me en masse. few now offer anything but "better than nothing" I have not heard a new idea from a "tic" in a very long time. I still hear things that sound as though they are coming from reason. but they are few and far between. since no one acts upon them, you can make the assumption that no "tic" cares about you or your family at all. no actions are for the good, they are only to fix what is bad. when we realize that this is all politicians are good for, we realize their worthless nature, written into the job description. they must lie, they must cheat, they must steal, for that is "decorum"
no amount of wishing fixes the pure unadulterated fantasy that is politics, religion, government, organizations, and almost any group that joins to fight their own fight. as each is then required not to help, but be an adversary.
people ignore damn near everything they learn that is common sense. until you set yourself apart from a habit and view it, you just can't see it's numerous complications.
we have too much time on our hands in the modern world. we allow others to run our lives. when you remove this influence, you will have no need for associations that do not move you for a reason that also masquerades as common sense. joining any club compromises your future ability to think, for it sets a false standard.
if we would just remember what groucho said: "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member" If a few more folks remembered this, they would forget their differences.
no model is made for the future. a model is a map of the past.
Posted by oldtree at February 17, 2007 08:35 AMWhat took you so long?
The Democratic Party -- in spite of hopes and wishes of liberals for 38 years -- fractured and died in 1968.
They keep us around to serve as the whipping boy for all legislative failures -- both GOP and Dem. The GOP is getting real close to fulfilling their dream to destroy all good liberal advances of the twentieth century.
DEMS are in a state of denial. Can't see that Clintonian neo-liberalism set the stage for GWB to push forward with the GOP wet dream. Picking it up where Nixon and Reagan left off. At every step of the way DEMS were complicit.
It took the US twenty years to get out of Vietnam (and then only because a solid majority of the country was sick of it) and that foreign adventure folly was simple compared to what we've created in Iraq. But DEMs are so stupid (or so willing to settle for crumbs) that they're willing to promote pols that voted for the IWR. Hillary, Edwards et al. are not fit to be POTUS because they lack good decision making skills, convictions and courage, and/or are sleazy calculating pols.
This country can solve anything. However, we will continue to solve nothing as long as the solution keys are taken off the table. For all his faults, even Jimmy Carter recognizes that Isreal is on such key is resolving anything in the Mid-East.
For six years Senate DEMs whined that they were powerless because they were in the minority. But the new minority GOP Senators have no trouble exercising power. Yuck!
Posted by Marie at February 17, 2007 08:37 AMKD - You're probably right. Gore has become the Natalie Maines in the DEM Party. But the Party ain't the Grammys. It neither recognizes nor rewards the ones with talent, skill, brains, integrity and courage.
Then again, if Gore were embraced by the Party, would he become insecure and revert back to being a spineless neo-liberal?
Posted by Marie at February 17, 2007 08:58 AMThy trly r cmplct, wth cwrdc, sdtn, nd vl btryl f mrc's ftr nt th bldy hnds f hr nms fr trflng gscnd. n ths ccnt thy hv mnfstd thmslvs s vn grtr dgnrts thn th kllr clt f llslm.
[Editor: ignore=off]KD - You're probably right. Gore has become the Natalie Maines of the DEM Party. However, the Party ain't the Grammys. His peers neither values nor rewards talent, skill, brains, courage and integrity.
Then again, if Gore were embraced, would he become insecure again and revert back to being just another spineless neo-liberal?
Posted by Marie at February 17, 2007 09:08 AMThe two-party arrangement, as well as campaign financing, is at fault in giving us too "me-too" parties. The Dems need not worry about the left because of "loyal Democrats" so they can, as they did big-time under Clinton, screw the working class and the other "loyal Democrats" who have no other place to go.
Third and fourth parties exist in other countries and become power brokers on important policy issues as they align this way and that, but that is not possible in a two-party system. The US system is of course not dictated by the Constitution but has been reinforced recently as the two look-alike parties make it nearly impossible for third parties to participate in the electoral process. Read Ralph Nader's "Crashing the Party" about the procedural difficulties in just getting on the ballot--the petitions (why petitions?) have to be a certain size and color, etc. Kerry legally challenged Nader's ballot access in every state and it's expensive to hire lawyers and counter the challenges. Third party candidates are barred from presidential debates by the Repub/Dem joint committee that runs them. And on and on, the result being that democracy is lost and "loyal Democrats" have to hold their noses and vote for losers like Kerry whose positions differed little from Bush's--as we will always see in a regimented two-party system where every candidate takes a strong position squarely on the fence.
"The United States as envisioned by the Founding Fathers no longer exists. We were simply the Americans who happened to be here when it died."
Phid nailed it, as usual.
bendejo, Then the repukes are satan themselves. POS
Posted by Seven of Six at February 17, 2007 09:14 AMThen again, if Gore were embraced by the Party, would he become insecure and revert back to being a spineless neo-liberal?
I can only assume that the past six and a half years have shown Gore that there is nothing to be accomplished from a spineless neoliberal perspective. I don't think he would run as a means of massaging his own ego and there are already enough other spineless candidates that he would gain nothing by throwing himself into that pot.
If he were to decide to run now, I think it would be out of recognition that the US itself is at stake (in Constitutional terms) and that there is enough ground support for him to at least make the attempt to begin to turn things around.
I think he is the only candidate who possesses the moral legitimacy required to lead the country at this point.
Posted by KD at February 17, 2007 09:15 AMthe Dems wont stop the war. They are getting paid too much by the warmongering progitmakers to stop now. We'kk get more sound and fury, signifying NOTHING.
In 2008 when Chimpy refuses to leave office you can all tell me how full of shit I am
Posted by marblex at February 17, 2007 09:30 AMThe Congress isn't doing anything. I hope they spend the next 2 years doing non-binding this and non-binding that. Gives them something to do to fill out the hours in the day and most importantly, keeps them away from the economy.
The stock market loves it when the government is idle and not doing squat.
Posted by The Learning Curve at February 17, 2007 10:22 AMKD - The only way Gore gets into the mix is if there is a HUGE draft Gore movement. If this were successful and within the DEM Party, it could still be difficult for him not to be co-opted by the DEM power brokers. Perhaps a draft movement would be more potent if he ran as an independent after the other two parties select their candidates and the public response to both is "yuck." Rudy vs Hillary would gag most of the country.
marblex - a foreboding of something like that has been with me since the Bush v. Gore decision. However, that sense is too diffuse and undefined for me to project that GWB won't leave the WH in 2009. Perhaps my 12/00 dread was nothing more than intuited future bad things 9/11 or the Iraq invasion, but neither felt as if it was "it." Hope I'm wrong.
Posted by Marie at February 17, 2007 11:21 AMThe only way to stop the lobbyists from buying Congress is to put term limits on Congress. We need members who are more interested in our country than they are in their jobs. Russ Feingold is one of the few who meet that criteria.
Posted by WilliamR at February 17, 2007 11:29 AMWilliamR - term limits solve nothing. They do insure that a majority of officeholders are too inexperienced to direct and manage legislatures. There is no legislative fix for uninformed and unengaged voters.
Posted by Marie at February 17, 2007 11:40 AMHas Kucinich been complicit? Does he not possess the moral legitimacy to lead the country? I still think the media is in control of who is "legitimate" and that's a shame 'cause they have the judgement of a slug.
Gore/Kucinich '08
Posted by Sharon at February 17, 2007 12:24 PMer, substitute "electable" for that "legitimate"
Posted by Sharon at February 17, 2007 12:26 PMOh, GAWD, this is why Hillary won't stand up to Bush, supposedly:
Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief.
I've got a suspicion that it's entirely different than she's letting us know. I don't think the bitch plans on pulling us out of Iraq, even if she wins. She wants us there when she takes over, and she plans on keeping us there.
Julie - no way to know if she would want to get out or not. The truth is that she and none of the neo-libs have any freakin idea how to do it. They couldn't sell ice in hell.
Posted by Marie at February 17, 2007 01:14 PMIt would be a miracle if Congress could somehow head off the war with Iran that President Bush keeps pursuing without regard for the consequences. The President is mounting a war of aggression that will absolutely sink the United States in the mud of infamy. But my greatest fear is that reality itself will be sidelined, once Congress is faced with Bush's convenient, made-to-order enemy.
Is that the potential horror of complicity which we fear from Congress? Might the Democrats wrap themselves in the flag?--and spout every pious, patriotic platitude known to man? Can they be stampeded into war with Iran? This would clearly reflect the contempt in which the Bush Administration holds them.
I think Bush expects nothing else. The President may not be penalized for his infamous conduct, once the shooting match begins between American and Iranian forces. And I would guess that this is precisely the President's criminal calculation.
"Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself; in which, through sheer imagination, uprooted masses can feel at home and are spared the never-ending shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings and their expectations. The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda--before the movements have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone's disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world--lies it its ability to shut the masses off from the real world." --Hannah Arendt, The Origins of TotalitarianismWhile Senator Lieberman bleats over how we must, above all, avoid a constitutional crisis (where Bush's Iraq escalation is concerned), the final assault is commencing against Congressional authority (and relevance), waged by the worst, and most dangerous president this country has ever seen.
I am not counseling my fellow Americans to give up hope; I'm saying that we are passing through a dark and perilous hour. When I look at House proceedings on TV and find Speaker Pelosi there, I remember to rejoice a little, each time I observe her in action. I remember that Democrats have only recently come to power with their majority. Complicity is not a charge we should level at the Democrats during this early phase. Our Democrats haven't stumbled too badly; but the most dreadful challenge to their courage and integrity and patriotism remains to be faced.
Bush will follow his dark star; you can depend on that much. If his past behavior is any guide, he will wantonly provoke war with Iran, or simply attack them outright. Then he and his republican allies will try to infect Congress with war fever, and push this country past the tipping point, into a world of collective complicity and the totalitarian propaganda that Hannah Arendt spoke about. That would be the tribal, authoritarian world of dread, where we are always surrounded by enemies, where there is always "a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself".
This is a bunch of crap, pathetic, whining crap. Nasty snakes like bendito and sarge are just laughing at you all for this pity party here.
As those wonderful folks in the Senate just demonstrated, the Democrats CAN'T impeach bush, can't stop the war, can't defund the military.
So they have to work on it through public persuasion. What do you think the non-binding resolution is supposed to do, make that rat fucking psychopath stop and think about what he's doing? He know's what he's doing, detroying the ability of the government to govern so that the corporations have a free hand, never mind the consequences. And what do you think it's going to do to Bush, give him some semblance of humanity? Please.
So go ahead, blame the Democrats for trying to get the American People to start getting involved and putting pressure on these bastards to stop this insane destruction of our country, because that's the only way Bush/Cheney is going to be stopped.
It's easy to find actions that support your view, and there's a long list of things Democrats have done, but working within the system we have isn't my idea of being complicit with the war crimes of these guys. Ineffectual, sure. Weak, yes. Calculating and following polls to get re-elected, yep, that too. Catering to special interests or constituencies, you betcha.
How many of Joe Biden's voters depend on the financial interests that run Delaware? Think he'd get re-elected if he fucked those companies over? Think he could run the Foreign Relations committee that's investigating Bush from his armchair?
Am I saying the Democrats are blameless, faultless, pure and pristine? Of course not. But look how many goppers voted with the Dems in the House, 17. 17 lousy Republicans. Before, when the House was run by that disgusting pig hastert and his moronic bully boy delay, how many Dems would vote with the gop, 30-40.
The gop is the follow daddy's orders party, they don't think for themselves, so that makes it even more difficult for the Democrats to get their way, yet you all expect them to just impeach Bush? Now? How do you think that's going to happen exactly?
I'm sorry, but this whole post is embarrassing. You think Henry Waxman is complicit, Louise Slaughter, Patrick Murphy, Jon Tester, James Webb, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Pat Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Al Fucking Gore, you think that they're all complicit with these murderous puny little men ruining this country?
I'm sorry, I don't buy it, not for one second. I recognize their limitations and imperfections, their weaknesses and insecurities and failures, and yes, I realize there are some who may indeed be in line with the gop, like former intelligence committee chair Tauscher, note that former part, but giving up at this point, when they're actually making some progress, when we actually have the republicans responding to us for a god damned change, makes no sense whatsoever.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 17, 2007 07:13 PMHere's an example from FDL of how it can work, as noticed by euzious, regarding the North Korea deal. Bolton was marginalized because the Democrats attacked him, when he was first nominated for the UN, and while Bush still put him in the job, the die had been set.
For the benefit of future historians, the pushback against Bolton’s UN nomination [the first time] brought a lot of new people into the political process. Certain insiders started becoming truly alarmed at the way things were going, including the threat of war against Iran, and started getting the word out.
For those who think the Democrats aren't doing anything if they're not impeaching bush, this is an example of how it has to work. And this marginalization of Bolton took how long, 3 years? But it worked, didn't it!
Well, I can sympathize with every single viewpoint stated here. I agree, I'm not ready to give up on the Democrats just yet. Although it is pretty hard not to wonder if they ARE complicit. I think maybe just afraid to buck the status quo.
Mal Feasance, while what you say is quite true, don't be too quick to pass yourself off as a Canadian. My fiance is Canadian, and one of the biggest things that pisses him off is the notion that Canada is some kind of socialist worker's paradise. Companies there routinely deny their workers overtime, and work them bloody well to death..........my poor honey right now is very sick.........been working himself to death with unpaid overtime...the so called Liberal Government there is anything but, and is complicit with the US government..........
Canada is in it with Bushie up to their necks. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's true. I wish it weren't. If my fiance is EVER able to get here on a visa (which we are trying for) one of the FIRST things I am going to do is INSIST that he rest for a few months while we are waiting for that green card.
Duckman, I agree that these New Democrats are not complicit. They just flat out don't have enough power right now. Hopefully that will change in 2008.
Rose
Posted by Rosebuddear at February 17, 2007 08:25 PMIf the war is not de-funded by the end of this calendar year it will poison the election and the next presidency. IMO, only someone who cannot see that or someone who wants exactly that to happen would fail to vote to defund. Democrats should be frantic. Feingold, evidently, is one of a tiny handful of members of congress who are both sane enough and interested enough in the welfare of the nation to do anything about it.
Iraq will be a bloodbath when the US leaves. But that distinguishes it from what it is now ... exactly how? And Iraqis want us out.
As for writing off the Democratic party, I have for some time argued that all progressives ought to run out join the Republican party. If we did, perhaps we could drive it as far as the wingers did... in the other direction. Fortunately the progressives had some tiny meritorious effect on this last election. So maybe I'll stick around a little longer and cheer loudly. But I swear, I would vote for Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel before someone like Lieberman. Some recent polls at Agonist place me in the majority of their readers on this.
Posted by steve at February 17, 2007 09:12 PMLieberman is not a democrat nor a progressive nor much of an American, so voting for Ron Paul over him isn't saying much!
Posted by Duckman GR at February 17, 2007 10:34 PMYeah, Duckman, that's true, but you can see Steve's point. I don't know that much about Ron Paul..........he might be a total right wing loon in every other respect, for all I know.........but watching his absolutely magnificent antiwar rant on C-Span a while back gave me a big heap of warm fuzzies for the man.
Posted by Rosebuddear at February 18, 2007 04:48 AMI know, I just wanted to repudiate the creep one more time, that's why I put the exclamation, no editorial comment was being made towards Mr Paul!
Posted by Duckman GR at February 18, 2007 07:35 AMI hear ya dear. Some days I wish the Rapture would go BOTH ways. I think a lot of those lying bastards would be pretty damn surprised to find themselves going the OTHER WAY. Hahahha.
Not that a one of them believe any of that stuff they peddle to the masses. Hahah.
Take care,
Rose
Posted by Rosebuddear at February 18, 2007 08:17 AMWhat Duckman said at 7:13.
Posted by bartcopfan at February 19, 2007 08:37 AM